Was rarely thought of as a translation? And that means that it wasn’t a translation? Latin is a translation of the original Greek and Hebrew.
Tyndall fled England and was hunted down by those “faithful to the Church” because of his translations. The official charges are meaningless, his fame was as a translator and it was his infamy that led to him being a hunted fugitive brought up on charges of heresy.
It was obvious that I said “both Catholics and Protestants” and then gave an example of each, Henry VIII being so famously Protestant that I thought it went without mention, but perhaps you hail from Rio Linda?
You wrote:
“Was rarely thought of as a translation?”
Yes, it was ancient don’t forget.
“And that means that it wasn’t a translation?”
No, it was a translation, but it had existed already for 11 centuries by the time of the Protestant Revolution.
“Latin is a translation of the original Greek and Hebrew.”
Yes, it was - but it was 11 centuries old and was the only Bible in continuous use in the West for all that time. The fact that it was a translation itself was rarely if ever an issue. This is not a difficult issue to understand. You seem to be struggling with these basic facts.
“Tyndall fled England and was hunted down by those “faithful to the Church” because of his translations.”
As Daniell points out it was not because of his Bible translation, however. He was already accused of heresy BEFORE he began his translation of the Bible and his translation of the Bible - the act of translating it - was NEVER an issue at his trial. Again, this is clear from Daniell’s work and well as Demaus’. You’ve never read either one of those, right?
“The official charges are meaningless, his fame was as a translator and it was his infamy that led to him being a hunted fugitive brought up on charges of heresy.”
No.
1) The official charges meant everything for those were the reasons he was tried. Bible translation was not a crime in Holland or to the Dutch Church or the Inquisition.
2) He had no “infamy” as a Bible translator on the continent because those were not English speaking lands. His Bible would essentially be a closed book to them - rather ironic when you think about it!
3) His other - non-Biblical - translations certainly got him into trouble and those were much more widely distributed in Latin and English then his Bible at that time.
“It was obvious that I said “both Catholics and Protestants” and then gave an example of each,...”
Uh, no. You gave no specific example of Catholic suppressing the Bible. Tyndale is not an example of that at all. Those are just the facts. You may not like it, but that’s the way it is.
“Henry VIII being so famously Protestant that I thought it went without mention, but perhaps you hail from Rio Linda?”
The best you can do to defend your error and poorly put together post is borrow from Rush Limbaugh? So, Rush for your comebacks and Wikipedia for your citations? You don’t stand a chance here on this topic with that backdrop.
I suggest you actually read a BOOK.
Present some actual examples of what you claim.